From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,83ad1c4b896a5158
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-21 04:04:32 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GNAT and MySql - looking for information
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:08:34 +0200
Message-ID: <ckhnhvkk880lstebpl9peopaogfq3ran8c@4ax.com>
References: <3F1872E0.62F3262@alfred-hilscher.de> <u3ch2x2ip.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <51bnhvc3saae3c32o4p8vro832n4ra3vb5@4ax.com>
 <slrnbhnd9b.a8s.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1058785470 15372064 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40546
Date: 2003-07-21T13:08:34+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 09:41:16 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol
<randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

>Dmitry A Kazakov wrote:
>> I also used GNADE's ODBC. It worked fine. [Unfortunately it had only
>> "thin" bindings. So I had to wrap them into tagged types
>> ODBC_Environment, ODBC_Connection etc.]
>
>If you did improvements, please consider submitting these to the authors
>of Gnade so they can include them if they fit.

Well, they should first decide if they want to have thick bindings for
ODBC. Probably, they do not. I would not at their place, because this
could be solved in the framework of Ada DB bindings with ODBC as a
"transport" layer among many others. Which would be much preferable
than to have separate "thick" bindings for whatsoever interface.
Especially because then you can have a more efficent way [than ODBC]
to communicate with a given DB, without sacrifying the genericity of
your application.

>There are several bindings to different databases, but I think we are
>best served with a good general Gnade library than a lot of loose ends.
>Of course I can see that in some special cases it would be nice with
>bindings to a spesific database at it may utilise special features of
>this database, in this case (and possibly other) speical bindings are
>OK, but I would rather see Gnade as the library of choice.

Yes. Even if GNADE were bad (but it is AFAIK good), we should still
stick to it. (:-))

---
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de